House of Representatives Committees

Chapter 4 The New Model

4.1While the evidence presented to the JSCNCET raises valid arguments for
the reform of the CNMC, the Committee argues that the CNMC and the Ordinance
should be abolished. The membership of the CNMC as currently constituted is not
effective and any reforms are unlikely to make its operation more effective. A
number of submissions have highlighted the problems of involving senior
parliamentarians in the approvals process, and the high risk of bureaucratic
capture, under the current Ordinance.

4.2On the other hand, the Washington model provides a framework for direct
legislative involvement, expert management and effective public consultation.

The Washington Model

4.3
Washington DC shares with Canberra the attributes of being
both a national capital and a planned city. As an expression of national
aspirations in itself, and a site for commemoration of the nation’s history,
Washington, like Canberra, is subject to a detailed planning regime which must
balance the legacy of the past with the requirements of the present and the
possibilities of the future. Part of this is dealing with the challenge of
choosing appropriate subjects for commemoration and choosing suitable designs
and locations for new monuments and memorials.

4.4The Commemorative
Works Act1986 specifies requirements for the development,
approval, and location of new memorials and monuments in the District of
Columbia and its environs. The Act preserves the urban design legacy of the
historic L’Enfant and McMillan Plans by protecting public open space and
ensuring that future memorials and monuments in areas administered by the
National Park Service and the General Services Administration are appropriately
located and designed. Specifically, the Commemorative Works Act:

nDefines
commemorative works

nProvides
guidelines for the subjects of commemorative works, such as national
significance

nSeparates
the legislative process from the site and design process

n
Requires Congress to authorise each new commemorative work (subject)
by separate law

n
Requires the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and
the US Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) to approve site and design

nEstablishes
a hierarchy of sites

nEstablishes
the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC), which advises the
Secretary of the Interior, Congress, and sponsors on topics related to
commemoration

nPrecludes
the acknowledgement of donors on the sites of commemorative works

nAuthorises
NCPC and CFA to jointly develop design guidelines.

4.5
When amended in 2003, the Act established a Reserve, or
no-build zone on the National Mall, a proposal called for by the NCPC in its
2001 Memorials and Museums Master Plan.[1]

4.6The membership of the various bodies charged with the work of guiding memorials
through the approvals process is diverse. NCMAC consists of:

nDirector of the
National Parks Service

nArchitect of the
Capitol

nChairman of the
American Battle Monuments Commission

nChairman of the
Commission of Fine Arts

nChairman of the
National Capital Planning Commission

nMayor of the District
of Columbia

nCommissioner of the
Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration

nSecretary of Defense

4.7The NCMAC advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of
General Services on policy and procedures for the establishment of, and
proposals to establish, commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its
environs and on other matters concerning commemorative works in the national
capital as the Commission considers appropriate.

4.8Commemorative works may only be established on federal land as
specifically authorised by law. In considering legislation
authorizing commemorative works in the District of Columbia and its environs,
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate are expected to solicit
the views of the NCMAC.

4.9The National Capital Planning Commission comprises 12 members.
Commissioners represent federal and local constituencies with a stake in planning
for the nation’s capital. The President appoints three citizens, including the
Chair. At least one member must reside in Virginia and another in Maryland. The
Mayor of the District of Columbia appoints two citizens, who must be residents
of the District of Columbia.

4.10Remaining members serve ex-officio. These include the:

nMayor of Washington,
DC

nChair of the DC City
Council

nHeads of Executive
Branch agencies with significant land holdings in the region (Secretary of
Defense, Secretary of the Interior, Administrator of General Services)

nLeaders of the U.S.
House and Senate committees with DC oversight responsibility (Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform)

4.11Ex officio members usually appoint alternates to represent them at Commission
meetings.

4.12In evidence before the Committee, Mr Marcel Acosta, Executive Director of the NCPC, highlighted the benefits
of this broad membership base:

I think it is very important to have a broad based commission
with a variety of interests that can review a project from their various
perspectives. For instance, while obviously we are the nation’s capital, having
local representatives on our commission brings to our meetings a lot of local
issues and also a variety of points that they could raise in terms of how the memorial
may fit into their city’s master plan as well as the impacts such memorials may
have on the various neighbourhoods that they are housed in. So they do bring a
very important perspective to the table. By having other federal agencies such
as the National Parks Service representatives or Department of Defense
representatives you see they can also bring to the table their experiences in
terms of how this fits into, for instance, a park or the historic nature of
that park. Also, it can even bring in issues in terms of how to maintain it
over time, which are very important issues. Also, some of
the other members are presidential appointees or members of Congress and that
brings into the discussion the importance of the memorial from a national
narrative standpoint. So having that discussion and
bringing all the various points of views to the table is a very important part
of our process and I think it is something that makes our process work very
effectively.[2]

4.13Another important aspect of the Washington model is the inter-relationship
between the various bodies working within the memorials approvals process. For
example, the link between the NCPC and NCMAC ensures a level of integration
between the various stages of the approvals process:

The chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission has
a seat on the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. The benefit of
that is that, at the very earliest stages for NCMAC, NCPC has an opportunity to
weigh in on the types of issues that it will be interested in looking at as the
project develops. We find that that is one of the best ways to sort out any
controversial issues or any matters that we know will be of importance. It is
important to note, though, that NCPC is not bound by a decision of the National
Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, because that body is advisory. So we can
always go back and re-examine matters once they come before the commission.[3]

4.14The system of delegation, where high office holders delegate their role
to expert officials, was also seen as a strength of the Washington model. Mrs
Lucy Kempf, Urban Planner, Policy and Research Division, NCPC, explained:

For example, the mayor brings the State Historic Preservation
Officer, who is very familiar and involved with local District of Columbia
views and is an expert in memorial design. The Secretary of Defence usually
brings to the table a person who is Chief of Land and Facilities Planning. So
they bring the subject-matter experts to the table.[4]

4.15Mr Acosta continued:

Also, given the fact that the responsibility of that
commission is to opine on the subject matter for the proposed memorials—their
appropriateness in terms of being a permanent memorial—bringing in the
subject-matter experts helps make the determination in a clear fashion. Those
are delegated responsibilities but the process does work well because the
response back to Congress is typically based on professional guidance.[5]

4.16The process by which memorials are approved falls into two basic phases,
dealing with subject, then design and location. In the first phase, the
sponsors of a proposal seek congressional approval for the subject for
commemoration. In evidence before the JSCNCET, Mrs Kempf stated:

Usually the non-profit or constituency group will approach a
single senator or representative and they will introduce the legislation. That
will then go to the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which is
that diverse body Mr Acosta described earlier. They will provide views on
whether or not the subject that is proposed meets the standards of the
Commemorative Works Act. That is a public meeting, so there is an opportunity
there for public input. From that point it goes back to congress and then it is
for them to decide whether or not to pass a law that authorises that subject.[6]

4.17Approval is then granted by Act of Congress.

4.18In the second phase, the National Capital Planning Commission and the
Commission of Fine Arts determine the location and design of memorials.

4.19A sponsor authorized by law to establish a
commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs may request a
permit for construction of the commemorative work only after the following
requirements are met:

n
Consultation—The sponsor must
consult with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission regarding the
selection of alternative sites and design concepts for the commemorative work.

nSubmittal—Following consultation in accordance with clause (1), the
Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services, as
appropriate, must submit, on behalf of the sponsor, site and design proposals
to the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission for
their approval.

4.20Decisions on subject matter are made against the guidelines within the Commemorative
Works Act 1986. Decisions on location are made according to the Memorials
and Museums Master Plan. This Plan:

nIdentifies the 100
most suitable sites for future memorials and museums

nDescribes and
evaluates site conditions

nEstablishes a
commemorative zone policy for siting memorials and museums

nInventories existing
memorials and museums

nForecasts demand for
new museums and memorials

4.21NCPC develops the plan in consultation with the two other review bodies
that approve the location and design of commemorative works on federal land—the
Commission of Fine Arts and NCMAC.

4.22Two important features of the Washington model are Congressional
approval and private sponsorship. As Mr Acosta explained to the Committee:

One of the key factors in siting memorials in the nation’s
capital here in Washington is really that it is up to Congress first of all to
make that determination. The second issue that distinguishes our process is
that these memorials are proposed typically by outside groups or sponsors. The
sponsors are responsible in almost all of the cases for fundraising to build
the memorial and establishing a reserve fund to maintain it. I think it is
somewhat different from other countries, but in this case the process is
initiated by an outside body that go to Congress to get legislation put forward
and approved in order to have the memorial process triggered and then it moves
forward in terms of a site design and review process.[7]

4.23In Washington, the costs of memorials are met by the sponsors, who must
also meet the cost of ongoing maintenance by allocating ten per cent of
construction costs to this purpose. The memorial becomes the property of the
National Park Service, which is responsible for care and maintenance in
perpetuity. The cost of construction and the stringent rules for national
memorials set out in the Commemorative Works Act 1986 combine to ensure
that the number of potential memorials is not in serious danger of surpassing
the available sites.[8]

4.24Projects are subject to the conditions set out in the Commemorative
Works Act 1986 and the guidance given to Congress by NCMAC. Proposals approved
by Congress are then subject to the guidance of the NCPC. Mrs Kempf explained
to the Committee

If it is a subject matter question then sometimes the
proposals are refused because they do not meet the standards of the
Commemorative Works Act, which provides very broad guidelines—for example,
about the subjects of memorials. They should relate to an American experience.
There are some timing restrictions in there that say that, if you are honouring
a person or an event, a certain amount of time has to have passed. If the
proposal does not meet these standards they initially will provide some
guidance to congress, through the National Capital Memorial Advisory
Commission, recommending that the proposal be changed or dismissed. Site
selection and design is a process where the designs change over time and we
work very closely with the sponsors. So they are not usually rejected but just
modified through a design process.[9]

4.25Another key feature of the Washington model is the attention given to
heritage issues—the impact of proposals on the overall historic design of the
city, upon particular existing heritage values and upon particular localities. Harmonising
past and present is an essential part of the NCPC’s work:

In the law that establishes the Commemorative Works Act there
is a great deal of deference to the city’s historic plans, including the L’Enfant
plan, which is similar to the Walter Burley Griffin plan for Canberra. From our
commission’s standpoint we are very thorough in our analysis of how a memorial
may affect the historic plans of the city in terms of the impacts on streets or
parks or open space and also how it may affect the National Mall in terms of
its historic aspects. We take that very seriously in our
review. It is a very important part of our review process. We try to work it in
a way that makes sure that whatever is developed and whatever is finally put up
is respectful of its setting but also allows some flexibility and creativity to
be exhibited in the memorial. There is always that tension that we are trying
to deal with. It is a negotiation process between the sponsors and the various
commissions that allow it to happen.[10]

4.26Public consultation is also an integral part of the Washington model. Mr
Acosta told the Committee:

In the creation of the legislation it obviously goes through
a legislative process where Congress hears, through testimony and other means,
from supporters and people who may oppose the memorial. It goes through that
process. Within our process at the National Capital Planning
Commission we do have public hearings where the public is invited to testify
with respect to a memorial in terms of the location, for instance, or the
design of the memorial. I think our sister agency, the Commission of Fine Arts,
also does the same. With the National Capital Memorial Advisory Committee there
are opportunities for the public, when that committee is making recommendations
back to Congress, to also provide testimony with respect to the memorial even
before Congress approves it. So there are multiple venues for the public to
take in a discussion about how a memorial fits into the national narrative as
well as issues with respect to its location and its design.[11]

4.27Typically, the NCPC conducts a formal overview of a project, with staff giving
a recommendation to the Commission as to how and where a project should
proceed. There is time set aside at the meeting of the Commission for the
public to provide testimony. The public can also present testimony to the NCPC
as part of its deliberations.[12] Having input from the
local communities within Washington DC is seen as an important part of the
memorials approval process:

We do have people from the communities and civic
organisations who are based in DC come and testify at our commission meeting. I
think that is one of the things that we try to do. Even if areas such as the
National Mall are essentially of federal or national interest and are supposed
to be places where the national stories are supposed to be told, they are also
very important places for local residents to congregate to relax, as there are
recreational areas. Also, there may be national parks in neighbourhoods where
these memorials are located and the community residents have a vested interest
in terms of what is developed and what may come out of this process. So we do
feel that having residents of the District of Columbia or of the hills
communities come in and bring their thoughts to the table is a very important
part of the process and we do have that sort of participation at our meetings.[13]

4.28The NCPC was also focussed on innovation, on looking at memorials from a
holistic point of view and seeing commemoration in a more broadly
representative way. Mr Acosta told the Committee:

Just to elaborate on that: from our staff perspective as well
as the National Park Service’s perspective, we’ve undertaken a major study of
commemorative works in the national capital. We’re really looking at it from
what is there today, trying to analyse from a percentage standpoint—as
Christine [Saum] mentioned, many of our memorials are military memorials—and
trying also to get into the public’s mindset that there are other types of
memorials out there that may or may not be represented in the national
narrative and that there may be opportunities to put those forward. But you
have to construct the basic research first and let people know what is there
today, in order to start having that discussion. Hopefully, over the next
couple of years, by publishing this report and having discussions with members
of Congress and others who might be interested to look at the state of
commemoration today we can move that forward in terms of whether there are
other things we should be thinking about to complete this narrative.[14]

4.29As Mrs Kempf explained to the Committee, one innovation was the idea of
temporary memorials. The NCPC was currently looking at ‘a competition among
artists and designers that would explore…how a temporary display can
effectively convey perhaps similar issues as permanent memorialisation but in a
very different way’.[15]

Committee conclusions

4.30The JSCNCET is of the view that any attempt to reform the Ordinance is an
attempt to take a decision-making process relevant to the Canberra of the 1920s
and adapt it to modern democratic expectations. However, that CNMC model is
simply too unsuitable for it to be useful. Indeed, one could argue on the basis
of the CNMC’s history, that the CNMC has long ceased to have a meaningful role
in the development of Canberra.

4.31Traditionally, the status of the senior parliamentarians was seen as
giving the CNMC a weight and national perspective fitting for something of such
lasting national significance as National Memorials. As a matter of principle,
this is a very attractive concept. However, as the senior parliamentarians
appointed to the CNMC have not always been able to fulfil their role, much of
the decision making has been left to officials. Whatever one may think of the
results, this outcome is clearly the opposite of what was originally intended
under the Ordinance.

4.32Passing responsibility to less senior members of parliament should have
the effect of increasing the practical effectiveness of the parliamentary
membership of the CNMC, but possibly at a cost to the status of the Committee.
Removing parliamentarians altogether from the membership of the Committee may
also increase its effectiveness, but this would only reduce parliamentary
engagement even further. The use of delegations, as suggested in the Department
of Regional Australia’s submission, does not obviate this problem—it merely
moves it to persons with a lower level of responsibility and authority.

4.33Alternatively, by applying the Washington model to the local situation,
effective parliamentary involvement could be regained.

4.34The JSCNCET believes there is much to commend it in
the Washington model. There is effective congressional involvement, through the
initial legislative process and the participation of committee chairs on the
various Commissions. There is effective public involvement, through public
input at the various stages of the process. A variety of interests are
represented in the various Commissions. No one entity dominates the
process—diversity of views is not merely required but probably inevitable.
There is a clearly established legislative framework, and detailed planning of
commemorative works and available public space. There is also a high level of
expert input into the approvals process.

4.35There are, of course, difficulties in translating the Washington model
to the Canberra scene. The National Capital Authority is effectively the only
planning agency in the Parliamentary Zone, and would have to fulfil a number of
the roles found within the Washington model, thus foregoing one of the central
attributes of the Washington model—the diversity of inputs. The US apparatus is
too large for Canberra, so could not be easily replicated. Creating diversity
of views and inputs here would require a different set of arrangements.

4.36Nonetheless, there a number of features of the Washington model that are
directly relevant to Canberra. Firstly, the importance of legislation
underpinning the Washington model. This sets out in law what can be
commemorated, broadly how and where it can be commemorated, what processes have
to be gone through, and who is responsible for doing what in the process. A
clear lesson for Canberra is that, at the very least, the National Memorials
Ordinance 1928 could be reformed to cover some or all of these issues
and/or the Guidelines for Commemorative Works in the National Capital
could be revised and made a legislative instrument, probably as an Appendix to
the National Capital Plan.

4.37Washington’s Memorials and Museums Master Plan provides a strategic
framework in which all proposals for new memorials may be placed. The mapping
of memorials ensures that planning authorities and the public know what has
been commemorated and where, and thus what can be commemorated without
duplication or inappropriate location.

4.38Importantly, the Washington model provides for the effective involvement
of the local government and local community without loss of the overall
national perspective. It also provides effective mechanisms for public
consultation and input through a range of agencies at various stages of the
process.

4.39Heritage management and planning are a priority. The Commemorative
Works Act 1986 protects Washington as both a planned city and as the national
capital. A high value is placed on the city’s original plan. Memorial proposals
must meet stringent requirements in respecting the integrity of the original
plan and the heritage value of the existing landscape.

4.40The distribution of costs between sponsors and the National Parks
Service is, from the Canberra perspective, an interesting innovation. Requiring
proponents to contribute to the maintenance of memorials through a contribution
of ten per cent of the overall cost seems fair and reasonable.

4.41The JSCNCET also approves of the rule providing that no donor names
appear on a memorial.

4.42Lastly, the JSCNCET was impressed by the spirit of innovation shown in
Washington in terms of seeking new ways to commemorate the past. Looking at the
commemorative landscape from the point of view of what had not been
commemorated can only lead to a more representative range of commemorative
subjects, ones reflecting on society more broadly, not just the traditional
range of memorial subjects. Other innovations, such as the use of temporary
memorials, are also fertile ground for exploration.

The way forward

4.43The JSCNCET proposes a new process for approving significant National
Memorials and National Monuments in Canberra, a hybrid of the present National
Memorials process and the process used in Washington DC. The process would
involve a two-pass assessment, the first pass focused on commemorative intent, the
second pass on character and location (see Figure 4.1).

First pass assessment

4.44Each proposal for a National Memorial would in the first instance
require a motion to be introduced in each House of Parliament approving the
commemorative intent of a proposed National Memorial. The proponents would seek
a sponsoring Member or Senator who would be responsible for the introduction
and the passage of the motion.

4.45Following the introduction of the motion, the memorial proposal would be
referred to the JSCNCET for consideration and report. The National Memorials
Advisory Committee (NMAC), an advisory committee appointed to assist in the
evaluation of each memorial’s commemorative intent (see below), would ensure
that the proposal complied with new Criteria for Commemorative Works in the
National Capital, a revised, more prescriptive version of the current
Guidelines. The National Capital Authority would be responsible for assessing
the proponent’s budget for the design, construction and maintenance of the proposed
National Memorial, and capacity to finance the proposal. The approvals by NMAC
and the NCA would form the basis for a report by the JSCNCET on the
commemorative intent of the proposal. Upon the JSCNCET’s report, the motion
would proceed at the pleasure of Parliament, and, if passed, the commemorative
intent of the proposed National Memorial is approved.

4.46Once conceptually approved, the task of identifying a location for the
memorial and initiating a process for its design would pass to the National Capital Authority. This
would involve extensive public consultation, independent expert input, and the
gaining of environmental and heritage approvals. The proponent of a
memorial may be charged with sponsoring, or even funding, a design competition,
but with the NCA remaining responsible for approval of any outcome of this
process.

Second pass assessment

4.47Once a design and location have been settled, the proposal would once
again be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External
Territories for consideration and approval on behalf of the Parliament. If
appropriate, the Committee would invite submissions from the public and
undertake public hearings.

4.48This second approval by the JSCNCET would not require further debate in either
House. The Committee’s endorsement of design and location would be the final
approval required for the project. This would require specific legislative
action to give the JSCNCET authority to act on behalf of Parliament. At this
point construction can commence if funding is secured.

Commemorative Works Act

4.49This process would be underpinned by an Australian version of the Commemorative
Works Act 1986, which would set out the process in detail.

4.50An Australian Commemorative Works Act would:

n Define a
commemorative work

nDefine the
legislative process by which commemorative intent is established and approved
by Parliament

nEstablish and define
the responsibilities of the National Memorials Advisory Committee

Figure 4.1 Proposed assessment process for commemorative
works.

nGive legal standing
to the Criteria for Commemorative Works in the National Capital

nDefine the process to
establish the character and location of a proposed National Memorial,
including:

nthe
responsibility of the National Capital Authority

nthe public
consultation process

nmechanisms
for seeking independent expert input

nthe
timing and nature of environmental and heritage approvals

nThe responsibilities
of proponents in meeting design, construction and maintenance costs, including
providing ten per cent of the overall costs towards ongoing maintenance of the
new National Memorial.

4.51The Act would also define the role of the JSCNCET in the final approvals
process for National Memorials.

4.52The definition of ‘commemorative work’ would encompass both National
Memorials and National Monuments as currently defined by the National Capital
Authority. The Act would not, however, apply to minor commemorative works, such
as plaques or individual trees outside the Parliamentary Zone.

4.53The Act would have the Criteria for Commemorative Works in the
National Capital incorporated as a schedule, and the JSCNCET recommends, as
per Chapter 3, that these Criteria be revised in line with the findings of this
report. The Act would also incorporate a Memorials Master Plan as a schedule,
as per Chapter 3, the Master Plan to include mapping of existing memorials, and
potential sites for new memorials in accordance with the Guidelines.

4.54The Act would require the NCA to maintain a register (published on a
specific National Memorials website) of all National Memorial proposals,
including their current status, and all relevant decisions and approvals, along
with all supporting documentation, including:

nIndependent expert
advice

nPublic submission

nReports of public
consultations

4.55The Act will require memorial proponents to undertake the following
tasks:

nDevelop a design
competition brief (if necessary)

nRun a public design
competition (if necessary)

4.56The Act will require memorial proponents to undertake the following
steps in conjunction with the NCA (as per Chapter 3) after the passage of the motion
approving commemorative intent:

nDevelop the budget
and business plan for construction, maintenance and associated infrastructure
costs.

4.57The National Memorials Advisory Committee would be as proposed in
Chapter 3, and consist of recognised experts in a range of disciplines, including
history, heritage, architecture and planning, representatives of veterans and
the services, and representatives of organisations with a strong focus on
Australian history and culture at a national level (such as the National
Gallery of Australia, National Library, National Museum, National Archives,
National Portrait Gallery, Museum of Australian Democracy, National Film and
Sound Archive, National Maritime Museum, High Court of Australia, Australian
War Memorial or the relevant Commonwealth Department). It would also have one
representative of the ACT Government, appointed on the recommendation of the
ACT Chief Minister, and be chaired by a representative of the National Capital
Authority. Membership would vary depending on the nature of the proposed
National Memorial.

4.58The Act would place restrictions on donor names to prohibit the
appearance of donor names or names of relatives on or near National Memorials
and National Monuments, except where the specific object of the
commemoration—its commemorative intent— is individuals, families of groups that
have been found to be worthy subjects of commemoration.

4.59The Act would also provide that commemorative works, as defined by the
Act, could be initiated by the Commonwealth or ACT Governments.

Recommendation 9

4.60

The JSCNCET recommends that the National Memorials
Ordinance 1928 be repealed and replaced with an Australian Commemorative
Works Act, based on the United States model. This Act would provide for a
two-pass assessment process for National Memorials, the first pass focused on
commemorative intent, the second pass on character and location; and that:

nAt
the first pass, a motion be introduced to Parliament to approve the
commemorative intent of a proposed National Memorial.

nFollowing
the introduction of the motion, the proposal be referred to the JSCNCET for
consideration and report, based on the following approvals:

Þthe memorial proposal be referred to the National Memorials
Advisory Committee—a Committee made up of history and heritage experts, with
one ACT Government representative, chaired by the National Capital Authority—to
ensure that it complied with the Criteria for Commemorative Works in the
National Capital

Þthe National Capital Authority assess the proponent’s budget
for the design, construction and maintenance of the proposed National
Memorial, and capacity to finance the proposal.

nOnce
approved by the National Memorials Advisory Committee, and with financial
arrangements certified by the National Capital Authority, the JSCNCET would
report upon the proposal. The motion would proceed at the pleasure of
Parliament, and if passed, the commemorative intent of the proposed National
Memorial would be approved.

nFollowing
passage of the motion establishing the commemorative intent of the proposed
National Memorial, responsibility for identifying a location for the memorial
and initiating a process for its design would pass to the National Capital
Authority. This would require memorial proponents to develop a design
completion brief and run a public design competition (if necessary); and undertake,
in conjunction with the National Capital Authority, the following tasks:

ÞDevelop the budget and business plan for construction,
maintenance and associated infrastructure costs.

nAt
the second pass, assessing design and location, the proposal would be referred
to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External
Territories for consideration and approval on behalf of the Parliament. If
required, the Committee would be able to invite submissions from the public
and undertake public hearings.

nSecond
pass approval by the JSCNCET would provide the final approval for the
proposed National Memorial.

nCommemorative
works, as defined by the Act, could be initiated by the Commonwealth or ACT
Governments.

Recommendation 10

4.61

The JSCNCET further recommends that the proposed
Commemorative Works Act:

nDefine
a ‘commemorative work’, encompassing both National Memorials and National
Monuments as currently defined.

nEstablish
a National Memorials Advisory Committee, consisting of recognised experts in
a range of disciplines, including history, heritage, architecture and
planning; representatives of veterans, the services and relevant Commonwealth
Departments; representatives of organisations with a strong focus on
Australian history and culture at a national level; one representative of the
ACT Government, appointed on the recommendation of the ACT Chief Minister;
and chaired by a representative of the National Capital Authority. Membership
to vary depending on the nature of the proposed National Memorial.

nInclude
the Criteria for Commemorative Works in the National Capital as a
schedule to the Act.

nInclude
a Memorials Master Plan, including a map of existing memorials and potential
sites for new memorials in accordance with the Criteria, as a schedule to the
Act.

nRequire
the National Capital Authority to maintain a register (published on a
specific National Memorials website) of all National Memorial proposals,
including their current status, and all relevant decisions and approvals,
along with all supporting documentation, including:

ÞIndependent expert advice

ÞPublic submission

ÞReports of public consultations

nDefine
responsibilities of proponents in meeting design, construction and
maintenance costs, including providing ten per cent of the overall costs towards
ongoing maintenance of the new National Memorial.

nProhibit
the appearance of donor names or names of relatives on or near National
Memorials and National Monuments, except where the specific object of the
commemoration—its commemorative intent— is individuals, families of groups
that have been found to be worthy subjects of commemoration.

nExclude
minor commemorative works, such as plaques or individual trees outside the
Parliamentary Zone, from its operation.